Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-08 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 8, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 25, 2014 Study Session. 2. March 11, 2014 Regular Meeting. 3. March 25, 2014 Study Session. IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION #: PL-2013-01858 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance and to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Continued from March 11, 2014 meeting - Public Hearing is Closed. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. B. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES February 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Melanie Mindlin Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Troy J. Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Brown noted his participation on the Building Appeals Board meeting. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the third meeting of the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is Wednesday, March 5. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Normal Neighborhood Final Plan. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the goal of the Normal Neighborhood plan is to provide guidance for future development in this area, and stated the plan focuses on transportation, identifying and integrating natural areas (wetlands/creeks), and accommodating future housing needs for the City. He noted the Planning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the City Council, and the Council will make the final decision on the plan. He added this is a fairly detailed conceptual plan and noted the importance of including some flexibility for potential future amendments. Mr. Molnar clarified this area is not yet within the city limits and all the properties will need to be annexed. He noted the question has come up about how quickly this area will develop, and stated the short answer is we don’t know. However, historically properties in Ashland do not annex or get developed quickly, and in the last 26 years only six residential annexations have occurred. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the Normal Neighborhood Plan that outlined the four key components: A Comprehensive Plan Map change. The creation of four new land use zones: NN-01 Single Family Residential (5 units per acre), NN-02 Mixed Housing Types (10 units per acre), NN-03 Multiple Dwelling Residential (15 units per acre), and NN-03C Multiple Dwellings/Neighborhood Serving Commercial. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session February 25, 2014 Page 1 of 4 A planned street network that identifies neighborhood collector streets, neighborhood streets, shared streets, alleys and multi-use paths. Mr. Goldman commented on the existing Transportation System Plan (TSP) and explained this is a general guidance document that looks at north, south, east and west connections in a general sense and does not account for typography of the site. He stated the Normal Plan lays out a local network of streets and explained there are several TSP amendments that will be needed, including: relocate and reclassify Normal Avenue as a neighborhood collector, add East Main Street to the Planning Roadway Projects, add the Normal Plan Street Network to the City’s Street Dedication Map, add the multi-use paths to the Planned Bikeway Network Map, and adopt the Shared Streets standards. Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the Commission and explained the Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed plan and voted to recommend a singular access point onto East Main, however he does not support this recommendation. He stated a single access would force too much traffic onto a single entry point and the neighborhood collector would need to be classified as a higher designation street. Mr. Faught stated in general, street systems are designed to provide as many access points as possible, as long as they are not closer than 300 feet. Because of this, Mr. Faught clarified his recommendation is for three access points onto East Main. Mr. Faught was asked who will be responsible for paying for the East Main improvements. Mr. Faught responded that it could be a combination of both city funding and private development. He elaborated that this project will be added to the City’s Systems Development Charges Plan, and noted the possibility of creating an advanced financing district (AFD). He provided an explanation of AFD’s and stated they are similar to local improvement districts; the City would fund the project up front, and then as lots are annexed and developed they would be charged their fair portion. Mr. Faught was asked to comment on the status of the Normal railroad crossing. Mr. Faught explained ODOT Rail has indicated it will not be a problem to switch the private railroad crossing to a public crossing. He added this will be development driven and based on the number of vehicle trips. Comment was made questioning when property owners will find out what their portion of the costs are. Mr. Faught explained the City would need to go through a public hearing process to form an AFD; and Mr. Molnar clarified only properties that have annexed into the City limits can be assessed. Mr. Molnar provided an overview of the annexation requirements. He clarified properties have to be contiguous to the city limits to be eligible for annexation and they must establish that there is less than a 5 year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification. He noted these requirements moderate how much and how quickly land comes into the City. Staff was asked if there are any land use types that are in immediate need and Mr. Molnar stated multi-family housing is most in need, and the lowest need is detached single family homes. Adoption of code amendments to Chapter 18. Mr. Goldman explained the code amendments implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan and establish the zoning types, allowable uses, site development and design standards, and provides for the preservation of water quality, site hydrology, and natural areas. He also described the major and minor amendment process. Public Input Jonathan Seidler/357 Meadow/Stated the property at the end of Creek Drive is blocking the storm drain from entering Cemetery Creek and creating the potential for Creek Drive to flood. Mr. Seidler stated the Normal plan shows a road going through this location and asked how the City will address owners doing construction prior to annexation. Sue DeMarinis/145 Normal/Voiced appreciation for the work staff has done and stated it looks like the majority of development will occur where there is currently nothing. Ms. DeMarinis stated Normal Avenue still appears to be straight road and asked whether traffic calming measures will be used to slow speeds. She also questioned if people will travel at higher speeds on the Ashland Planning Commission Study Session February 25, 2014 Page 2 of 4 shared streets. She voiced her opposition for paved alleyways and streets going through the wetlands and questioned if owners will be able to mitigate their wetlands and increase the density on their lots. Gil Livni/240 Normal/Stated there is an 18 inch storm drain dumping directly onto his property and he blocked it to protect his property. Mr. Livni stated the developer of the adjacent development improperly directed the drain onto his property. He added Creek Drive also slopes onto his property which is four feet lower and he is protecting his property by directing the runoff to the side of his property and in the proper direction. He added he has been working with the City’s Public Works Department on remedying these issues. Randy Jones/815 Alder Creek, Medford/Stated he represents six property owners (30 acres) and their area encompasses all of the new Normal Street. Mr. Jones stated they want to be a part of this process and for this area to be annexed. He noted they are in the process of delineating the wetland and stated the bulk of Wetland 12 is caused by irrigation. He explained they stopped the irrigation flow years ago and this area is now drying up because it is not a natural wetland. Mr. Jones stated the proposed plan includes some positive items, however there are others that are non-starters for them. He added they won’t be part of this plan if the property owners have to bear the full cost of the improvements and stated he is pleased to hear about the potential for an advanced financing district. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek/Hopes the wetland delineations take into account that this is a draught year. Commission Discussion Staff was asked to explain the basis for the wetlands as they are currently shown. Mr. Goldman explained in 2007 a local wetlands inventory was completed for the entire City, and that inventory was recognized and adopted into the state wetland inventory with the recognition that the boundaries were not surveyed and future development in these areas would require a wetland delineation. He stated the wetlands are then expanded by 50 ft. around their perimeter pursuant to the water resources ordinance. The Commission discussed the wetland locations and conservation area. Comment was made that the key issue isn’t whether it is or isn’t a natural wetland, but preserving the riparian corridor and the existing character of the neighborhood. Additional comments were made about preserving the contiguous nature of the open area and wetlands. Mr. Goldman provided clarification of the density transfer language and noted a property owner could take advantage of this provision to offset the conservation area requirement and increase their density by 50%. Mr. Goldman clarified the open space land would likely be developed privately and would not become public park land unless the Parks Department purchased it from the property owner. Comment was made that it is important to express to the Council that the transportation network was designed in such a fashion that these streets will not be desirable for people to use as a cut through. Opinion was given that the East Main Street improvements should be completed before the City allows any development to occur, and suggesting it would be irresponsible for them to promote development of this area without a public railroad crossing. It was noted that the Public Works Department has assured them that the private to public conversion will not be problem, but they have not received any legally binding guarantees from ODOT Rail that this crossing can be opened without closing another one somewhere else in town. Comment was made expressing concern about the use of alleys and questioning whether they want to include the two alleys on the street network map. Suggestion was made to reduce the base densities, however the Commission did not support this idea. Mr. Goldman clarified one quarter of the project area is open space and this was largely determined by looking at the existing natural constraints. He stated throughout the process there has been contention that the wetland areas should be bigger or smaller, but the City started with the state wetlands inventory and used that as the framework. Mr. Goldman clarified there is one property that is 80% covered in open space; this property is owned by the school district and they are aware this land is largely undevelopable. He added this area has been identified as a possible acquisition by the Parks Department. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session February 25, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Comment was made that they are not using the term wetland, and instead are calling these conservation areas and open space, and the locations of these are based on where the original wetland delineations were located. If the wetland area is found to be smaller than the state delineation, they still want to keep this area as open space to further the character of the neighborhood. B.Unified Land Use Ordinance: Part Three of Section 18-4, Site Development and Design Standards. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this is the last piece of Section 18-4, which is the longest section of the ordinance because it includes all of the design standards. She noted the bulk of the work has been reformatting and removing repetitive language, and stated the only substantive amendment is to the solar orientation standards. Ms. Harris provided an overview of the proposed amendments to this section of the Unified Land Use Code: Street Lights: Street lights must be installed in a location where they will not obstruct public walkways or driveways and maintain an unobstructed through zone per the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. On-Street Parking on Boulevards and Avenues: On-street parking may be provided in bays or on a continuous on- street lane. : Alleys can provide access to the rear or side of properties. Alleys Nonconformities Created by Street Dedications: A sentence was added that clarifies this provision shall not apply to situations where the property owner is compensated for the land to be used for right-of-way. : Language was added clarifying that new development may be required to size Sanitary Sewer and Water Facilities water and sewer lines to accommodate future development as outlined in facility master plans. Sign Code Enforcement: This section has been deleted from the sign code section and moved to Part 1 – Enforcement. Solar Setback Exception Approval Criteria: New language distinguishes between exceptions and variances. The proposed language also clarifies that passive and active solar energy implications are evaluated on neighboring properties. Solar Orientation Standards: This language applies to land divisions in residential zones and states new streets shall be laid out so that lots have south facing sides for maximum solar access, buildings are oriented so that the long sides face north and south, design habitable structures so the primary living space is located on the south sides of the building, and have at least 30% of the roof area facing within 15 degrees of south in order to provide surface area for solar collection. Comment was made questioning why the City would adopt solar orientation standards and asking what if the property owner is not interested in solar. Several commissioners commented on the City’s goal to develop more green standards and this was one that was agreed upon. It was noted that while technology may change over time, the sun will always shine in the same direction. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session February 25, 2014 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Kaplan provided a brief summary of the recent Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee meeting. Commissioner Dawkins provided a recap of the Downtown Beautification Improvement Committee meeting. Dawkins also noted the City Council passed first reading of an ordinance amending the Uniform Policies and Procedures for City Advisory Boards and Commissions. Commissioner Brown noted his participation on the Systems Development Charge Review Committee. Commissioner Miller announced she will be absent from the March Study Session and both April meetings. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 11, 2014 Regular Meeting. Two corrections were made to the February 11 meeting minutes: 1) Roll call vote on the motion to approve PA-2013- 01421 (page 5) should read “Dawkins, Kaplan, Thompson, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Brown and Miller, NO” and the sentence at the top of page 10 should read “… and placed on the recommendation of Parks Department staff as to the number, type, and placement.” Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the February 11, 2014 minutes as corrected. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 1 of 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2013-01421, 270 N First Street. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Thompson/Peddicord m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2013-01421. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION #: PL-2013-01858 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance and to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Commissioner Miller recused herself from the public hearing. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman presented a brief report on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. He noted there have been a number of meetings on this plan over the last two years and most everyone is very familiar with the plan at this point. He clarified the plan’s components include a Comprehensive Plan map change, land use zoning, Transportation System Plan amendments, and code amendments. He explained this neighborhood will not develop all at once and individual proposals will come forward one by one over time. He added all the properties are subject to the City’s annexation requirements and requests for annexation go before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and all are subject to the affordable housing requirements. Mr. Goldman explained the Normal Neighborhood Plan establishes a general guide for future zoning, neighborhood street layout, conservation areas, and housing concentrations, and provided a handout of suggested staff recommendations to ensure consistency within the framework document. Public Input Howard Miller/160 Normal/Stated there are too many unknowns and loose ends with this plan and questioned why the City was doing a plan at this time. He commented on the 2011 buildable lands inventory and stated the need for annexation is not there. Mr. Miller commented on the open space and wetlands and stated aggressive actions are being carried out on several parcels to intentionally destroy or drain designated wetlands, and asked the Planning Commission to be concerned for the current residents who reside here. Dale Swire/133 Clay/Read aloud his written statement. \[See Exhibit 2014-01, attached\] Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek/Stated he represents the Meadowbrook Park Homeowners Association and stated the property most likely to develop first is right across from Creek Drive and has the ability to be developed as high density and neighborhood serving commercial. Mr. Anderson requested the zoning for this area to be changed from NA-03 to NA-02 and stated the lack of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bikepaths on both sides of East Main will leave the residents of this area with a traffic mess for years to come. Jonathan Seidler/327 Meadow/Stated Creek Drive flooded recently due to the actions of one of the property owners in the plan area and commented that Creek Drive will bear the brunt of whatever develops on the other side. Mr. Seidler asked the City to pay attention to what is happening out there. Ray Eddington/1760 East Main/Stated he represents Grace Point Church and read his written statement aloud. \[See Exhibit 2014-02, attached\] John Coldwell/501 Carter/Also represents Grace Point Church and continued reading Exhibit 2014-02. Mr. Coldwell commented on the wetland on their property and stated they believe it is smaller than current estimates and expressed concern that they will have to pay the price for an open space that is wider than it needs to be. He stated Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 7 the conservation designation takes away usable land and recommended the open space be based on the wetland delineations. Sue DeMarinis/145 Normal/Questioned what the NA-02 zone underneath the open space designation means, and also asked whether the City has to compensate property owners for designating portions of their land as conservation areas. Ms. DeMarinis expressed concerns about the City establishing a local improvement district to pay for the necessary improvements. She stated she was a part of the Strawberry LID that was formed when a development above her went in, and stated she and her neighbors were taxed $4,100 and that was just for paving, and is very concerned about what the costs for this will be. Ms. DeMarinis also questioned how the plan will be impacted if owners develop under County standards or if changes to the properties occur prior to annexation. Stuart Reid/2045 East Main/Stated he lives across from the Baptist church property and is an aquatic conservation biologist. Mr. Reid stated he thinks in terms of water and is happy to hear about the expansion of the open space around the creeks. He commented that when you look at historical photos you can see a whole series of riparian areas going across Ashland and warned once these areas are paved over you can never get those creeks back. Mr. Reid stated there is a substantial jog in Clay Creek at East Main that will need to be addressed and noted there are properties across the street that are dependent on wells and shallow surface water, and there are wetlands on the north side of East Main that are dependent on the subsurface flows. Carol Block/355 Normal/Commented on Wetland 9 and stated one of the property owners is making an attempt to dry up this wetland. She stated someone is making trenches to divert the water away and there is no doubt this is being done to minimize the wetland to allow for higher density development. Ms. Block stated we should be nurturing these wetlands, not destroying them to build homes, and hopes the landowners will be held accountable. She added 20% of the Normal plan area is inhabited by people who have no intention of annexing or developing their land. Alma Rosa Alvarez/491 Normal/Expressed concern about the NA-03 designation and stated this is an enormous amount of density for this small section of land. Ms. Alvarez voiced concern with traffic, noting most people have two cars and drive to their destinations, and also voiced concern with the wetlands and flooding. Lynn Ransford/1183 Village Square/Stated she lives in the Mill Pond area and traffic is already an issue on East Main at certain times of the day. Ms. Ransford questioned the safety for children and families going to the nearby schools and stated street improvements are necessary. She recommended a minimum of two new signals and widening East Main for left turn lanes. She also voiced concern that the residents will be responsible for paying for the improvements and asked the Commission to make sure the developers assume the costs. Gail Patton/822 Michelle/Stated she works at Hunter Park and the park is very active. Ms. Patton stated she can’t imagine the extra congestion and noted this is a narrow area as it is. Ms. Patton commented that the water in the plan area will need to be properly diverted and believes the rural feel of this area should be honored. Albert Pepe/321 Clay #21/Stated he lives in the Wingspread complex and really enjoys having a wetland in his backyard. Mr. Pepe voiced concern with development and the shrinkage of the wetlands and recommended this be looked at from an ecological perspective. He recommended any development be required to provide passive solar, rain catchment systems, and be properly oriented. Tanya Way/293 Meadow/Stated she has two small children and there are a lot of other families in the neighborhood. Ms. Way expressed concern with there being no public parks in the area, and is concerned with increasing the density in this part of town. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek/Commented on the hydrology and wildlife in the plan area. She also noted one of the property owners put a cap on one of the storm drains and now flooding and erosion is occurring. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Commission Discussion Staff was asked to address some of the issues that came up during public testimony. Mr. Goldman commented on the distinction between open space and wetlands. He stated the zone underlays the conservation areas and density can be transferred out of the conservation area onto the developable portion of the property. He added conservation areas cannot be developed, however there is an amendment process outlined in the code changes that would allow a property owner to reduce their conservation area to reflect a wetland that isn’t there. He stated the conservation areas in the plan include all know wetlands, floodplains, and buffers; and even if it is determined the wetlands don’t extend as far as we think, these would continue to be protected areas and noted this was one of the major policy decisions made by the Planning Commission. Staff was asked if there are elements in the plan that are not modifiable by a major or minor amendment process. Mr. Molnar stated there is very little that is so set in stone that it could not be changed in the future, however it would be very difficult for someone to reduce the concentration of housing; although the Council would always have the prerogative to change the projected densities. Staff was asked to comment on the East Main Street improvements and how these would be handled. Mr. Goldman explained the most recent traffic impact analysis for this area shows that East Main will need bike paths, sidewalks and a center turn lane, and stated these will need to be done in concert with the development of this area. He stated the developer could either pay for these improvements themselves, or the City’s SDC committee could determine that a portion will be paid by the City. Another option is the advanced financing district, in which case the improvements would be done up front by the City and those who benefited from the improvements would be charged when they develop their property. Mr. Goldman added advanced financing districts normally span 10 years, but can be extended to 20 years with direction from the City Council. He stated establishing one of these districts should be done immediately preceding development of the area; If people do not annex during that 10 or 20 year period they would not be charged for improvements, and properties on the opposite side of East Main would also not be charged since they are outside the city limits. Mr. Molnar clarified the requirements for annexation and stated the area needs to be adjacent to city limits, the proposal must be consistent with the zoning and other aspects of the plan, it must meet the minimum requirements for public facility improvement, and must establish that there is less than a 5 year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification. He added annexation requests go before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval, and the Council has a lot of discretion as whether to approve. Staff clarified property owners can continue to develop their land under County standards and not annex if they choose. Mr. Goldman clarified there are no on-street parking requirements for shared streets. He also clarified that in order to construct an accessory residential unit property owners must apply for a conditional use permit and noted only 200 of the City’s 8,000 lots have taken advantage of this provision. Staff was asked what would happen if they decide not to proceed. Mr. Molnar stated it is not an option to not forward this to the City Council, however the Council could decide to table the plan. He stated if the plan is not adopted this area would defer back to the current Comprehensive Plan designation and annexations would be evaluated on a case by case basis. A wetland delineation would be required, however if the wetland is smaller than currently shown the property owner would be allowed to reduce the size of the natural area based on the delineation. It was pointed out that Normal Avenue is currently shown as a major avenue running from north to south, and the ability to secure wetland/openspace connectivity would be lost. Comment was made that there is the possibility for development whether or not the plan is adopted. Commissioner Mindlin stated she would like to discuss several elements of the plan, but noted there are a number of people here tonight to speak to the next agenda item and stated she would be willing to table her questions until the next meeting. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 9:13 pm and clarified the Commission will not be taking public testimony when this item comes back for deliberations. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. Commissioner Mindlin recused herself from the discussion. Commissioner Dawkins recommended the Commission deliberate on this topic before they take public input and stated the key questions are: 1)Should vacation rentals be allowed in the R-1 zone? 2)Should there be strong language that CC&R’s are honored and override City code? 3)Does the structure need to be a primary residence and do the owners need to live on site? 4)Are renters allowed to sublet the property? 5)What types of accommodations will they allow? 6)Do they want to set a limit of the maximum number of rooms or square footage could be rented? 7)Is a conditional use permit appropriate? 8)Should eligible properties be limited to those that are within 200 ft of an arterial or major street? Mr. Molnar clarified in November 2013 the City Council voted to allow short-term vacation rentals in the R-2 and R-3 zones with certain stipulations. At that time they asked the Planning Commission to discuss the issue of rentals in the R-1 zone and if they determine this is reasonable, what types of restrictions would they place on this type of use. Commissioner Kaplan suggested they remove the 200 ft boundary requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones and not allow this use in the R-1 zone until they have had some time to see how this is working out. Commissioner Miller agreed with removing the 200 ft. boundary and stated in reviewing the materials she is not inclined to allow this use in the R-1 zone at this point. She noted if people need additional income there is still the opportunity for long term rentals. Commissioner Thompson stated she is interested in hearing the debate and stated she is inclined to at least evaluate this and craft some rules that would minimize the adverse impacts in the R-1 zones. Commissioner Peddicord voiced support for leaving the integrity of the R-1 zone as it is, but noted they allow home based businesses in the single family zone and questioned if it is within their purview to say what types of businesses are appropriate. Mr. Molnar stated if the majority of the Commission thinks this should not be allowed in the R-1 zone, the Council will want to know why the Commission feels this would have an increased adverse impact on the neighborhood when compared to the other uses that are already allowed. The Commission reviewed the discussion questions. Support was given to limiting this use to property owners and not allowing renters to do this, and for the homes to be owner occupied. The Commission discussed the accommodation types and support was voiced to consider one or two bedroom suites located within the residence that are accessed from the main entrance; however there was no clear direction on whether to include suites within the footprint of the residence that are accessed from a separate exterior entrance, or separate detached structures located on the property. In terms of the approval procedures, support was voiced for using the conditional use permit process. Public Input James Orr/207 Clinton/Voiced his support for the letter included in the packet materials from the Riverwalk Homeowners Association. Mr. Orr stated their CC&Rs rely on the City zoning and if the City’s zoning regulations change they will move to update their CC&Rs but does not feel this should be necessary. He voiced concern about including vacation rentals as a home occupation and stated the rules regarding parking would need to be changed. James Hawes/431 Courtney/Stated he operated a short term rental before he knew this was not permitted and stated all the concerns being discussed are contrary to his experiences. Mr. Hawes stated he is now renting for only 30 day periods but this has virtually eliminated his business. He noted most people want an independent living area including a bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, and can’t foresee owners renting just a single bedroom in their home. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Savana Rose/497 Park Ridge/Stated times are changing and travelers have difference preferences now. Ms. Rose stated she lives in a three level home and has an extra bedroom that she rents out to typically a couple or single woman with one vehicle. She stated her guests are vetted very well and she feels comfortable with them in her home with her and her son. She stated the neighbors were completely unaware that this was happening and stated many other home based businesses have many more visitors and vehicle trips. She stated she is willing to pay for a business license and the lodging tax and stated allowing this use would benefit the City and serve a niche that is not being fulfilling by current accommodations. Corrine Lombardi/1685 Old Hwy 99/Stated she owns travelers accommodations in the E-1 zone and stated there are unintended consequences to changing the uses in zones, and this should not be done without understanding what the long term effects will be. Ms. Lombardi stated accessory residential units were built for low income rentals and this change would impact the number of rentals available. She stated there is a trust the City has established with its citizens and business owners and requested they maintain the current zoning that has been carefully thought out. Tom Howard/2190 Siskiyou/Stated he is the owner of Oak Hill Bed & Breakfast and they have annual inspections conducted, pay the lodging taxes, and have a business license. Mr. Howard stated those of them who have followed the rules and opened businesses in the appropriate zones are being placed at a disadvantage to the people who are operating illegally, and stated R-1 is not a zone where businesses should be operating. He noted this could impact the availability of long term rentals and stated there is no shortage of a variety of lodging types for our tourists and stated he is not in favor of travel accommodations in the R-1 zone. Val Bachmayer/172 Skidmore/Stated she did a lot of research and purchased her property because it was in an R-3 zone and did so because she wants to start a business. She noted the conditional use permit includes a $1,000 fee and requires the fire marshal’s approval, and questioned allowing this in other zones where you can’t walk to downtown. She voiced concern with changing the playing field and stated people rely on the zoning to protect them. Dolly Travers/426 Clinton/Stated the purpose of the R-1 zone is to stabilize, protect, promote, and encourage a suitable environmental for family life. Ms. Travers questioned the impact of unintended consequences and stated this proposal is not in line with Ashland’s values, standards, or land use policies. She added changing the R-1 zone is not the right direction to keep Ashland sustainable in the future. Jordan Parker/137 N Main/Stated the affordable housing plans in 1990 and 2002 emphasized the permitting of accessory residential units in single family zones as one of the main strategies to promote affordable housing. Mr. Parker stated over the last 20 years a large number of these units have been constructed and to allow these units to be short term rentals undermines the original intent of these dwellings. He stated more than 2/3 of the rentals listed on airbnb.com and vrbo.com are cottages, studios, homes and apartments and are exactly the types of dwellings that should stay in the long term housing stock. Mr. Parker stated if accessory residential units are allowed to become short term rentals in the R-1 zone there will be too many conversions of long term to short term rentals, some accessory residential units will be constructed solely for short term occupations, and reducing the availability of long term rentals will drive up the costs of rent for Ashland residents. Catherine Moore/473 Maple/Stated she has owned property in Ashland before, but currently rents and stated since the rise of VRBO and AirBnB the number of rentals has greatly diminished and she has found it difficult to find affordable housing. Ms. Moore commented on several occasions she has been told a rental is available for only a portion of the year and that she would need to move out either during the summer months or during the winter holiday. Barbara Hetland/985 E Main/Stated she is a realtor in Ashland and has heard Ms. Moore’s story many times. Ms. Hetland stated when she sold houses in the R-1 zone people had certain expectations and to take that away for the benefit of a few individuals is wrong. She stated this should go to a public vote and stated to compare this to home occupations is ridiculous. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Dawkins announced the meeting has come to an end and those who did not get the opportunity to speak will have another opportunity to do so when this issue comes back before them. It was noted the several commissioners will be absent from the March Study Session and Dawkins announced this item will come back at either the regular meeting or study session in April, and speakers will be given two minutes to testify. B.Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Postponed to future agenda. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 7 of 7 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 25, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Melanie Mindlin Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Mike Morris Richard Kaplan Debbie Miller ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Dawkins announced the Downtown Beautification Improvement Committee held its second meeting, and also noted he was in attendance for the Council discussion on medical marijuana dispensaries. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Zoning Issues for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the commission ran out of time to discuss this item at their last meeting and since then the Council has provided further clarification and have directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment that prohibits marijuana dispensaries in the downtown overlay district, makes state licensed marijuana dispensaries a conditional use in the E-1 zone, and makes state licensed marijuana dispensaries a permitted use in the C-1 and M-1 zones. She stated the Council would like this moved forward in a timely manner and stated a public hearing for the proposed amendments is scheduled for the May 13, 2014 meeting. Ms. Harris noted the city’s administration department is hosting an informational meeting at The Grove tomorrow evening to have an open conversation and hear neighborhood concerns regarding a specific proposed dispensary located on Williamson Way. Ms. Harris reviewed the state requirements for dispensaries. She clarified sites must be 1,000 ft. from primary or secondary schools, 1,000 ft. from any other licensed dispensary, and must be located in an area that is zoned commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural. Additionally, they must be registered as a business with the Secretary of State’s office and they must have a security system installed, including a video surveillance system, alarm system, and safe. Public Testimony William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Requested the Commission consider placing buffer zones, especially around residential neighborhoods. Mr. Clary requested a minimum of 100 ft, but preferably 400 ft, from residential neighborhoods, and 1,000 ft from locations where there are high concentrations of children, such as North Mountain Park. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 1 of 3 Commission Discussion Commissioner Dawkins recommended this type of use be placed in areas that have higher traffic, instead of tucked back in more hidden areas. Additionally, he stated parking in front of the business is preferred to parking in the rear. He also suggested these be operated similar to liquor stores, with set hours and security requirements. Ms. Harris clarified restrictions on days and hours of operation is something that could be included in the code language. Comment was made that the conditional use process seems out of place in the E-1 zone and it would be preferable to establish specific restrictions. Ms. Harris clarified the City could use the conditional use permit process for dispensaries located within a certain distant of a residential zone, and a special permit for the other locations. She stated special use permits are primarily used in commercial and employment zones and are in between a permitted use and a conditional use and have very specific requirements. Commissioner Mindlin asked if there is any interest in establishing buffers for residential neighborhoods and parks/libraries. Commission Dawkins stated he does not like singling out one type of business. He also commented that if this becomes too restrictive there will not be any places left for these to operate. Comment was made questioning why the Council did not want this use in the downtown overlay district. It was clarified that the City Administrator has expressed that this is a tourist town and dispensaries on main street could be considered offensive. Suggestion was made for staff to look at the licenses issued in California and determine what has worked and what types of problems they have encountered. Additional Public Testimony Julie Matthews/2090 Creek/Questioned if the City is obligated to allow this and expressed her concerns with people using marijuana. William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Spoke to liquor stores and clarified OLCC determines where these businesses can be located. Chris Luz/121 Samuel Lane, Phoenix/Stated medical marijuana patients need safe access to their medicine and feels it is appropriate for the City to identify where they want these to go and to restrict them from downtown. He supported allowing dispensaries in high volume commercial areas, such as shopping centers, and stated the people who need these stores will find them. Commission Discussion Commissioner Mindlin asked what direction staff needs in order to draft an ordinance for public hearing. Ms. Harris stated staff will prepare an ordinance as proposed by the Council and clarified the Planning Commission will have the ability to make further recommendations and those can be added as a memo or report for the Council’s consideration. She added the Commission does not need to have their recommendations prepared in advance of the hearing, but if they require additional information that should be identified now. Commissioner Mindlin summarized the discussion and stated the commission is interested in establishing hours of operation, requiring surveillance, requiring a special use permit rather than a conditional use permit or potentially combining this with a conditional use permit in some parts of the E-1 zone, and a potential 100 ft. to 200 ft. buffer for residential, parks, and libraries. Mindlin also requested staff provide suggested language that would clarify the criteria for conditional use permits. B.Unified Land Use Ordinance: Part 18-6 Definitions. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this section combines all the definitions that were listed in the code into one section. She stated most of the edits were removing duplicates and editing the language for clarity, however the there is one substantive change. Ms. Harris went on to explain the proposed amendment to the definitions of hotel and motel would allow more flexibility for property owners to apply for a conditional use permit to use individual residential units for transient lodging in commercial and employment zones. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Ms. Harris provided a short overview of the proposed amendments to Dwelling, Home Oriented Commercial Activity, Lot Line, Open Space, and Subdivision. The Commission issued the following comments and suggestions regarding the Definitions section: Suggestion was made for staff to look into how row housing and cluster housing will be addressed. Comment was made questioning the language “other than an alley” in the Front Lot Line definition. A correction was noted to the Open Space definition; the text following “…left with a natural vegetation cover” should be removed. Recommendation was made for staff to re-phrase the Person definition to make it easier to understand. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 3 of 3 LEGISLATIVE HEARING _________________________________ Normal Neighborhood Plan Memo DATE: April 8, 2014 TO: Ashland Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Continuation of the March 11, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan. th At the March 11 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Commission deferred th action to the Commission’s April 8 meeting in order to continue deliberations and forward th recommendations to the City Council. The Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on May 6, 2014. Please refer to the March 11, 2014 packet materials and Staff Report for the project background, description of site and proposal, and discussion of project impact. There have been no changes to the th Normal Neighborhood Plan following the March 11 meeting. Materials which were distributed to the Commission during the March 11th hearing, and public comments posted on the Open City Hall forum are attached to this memo. At the prior meeting Staff presented the Commission with the following recommended changes to the draft Land Use Ordinance amendments and Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document which are intended to clarify terminology and provide inter-document consistency: Amend the framework document (page 7) under Double Dwellings to strike NN-01 as a zone where they are permitted. Amend the Framework Document to alter references to Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing (e.g top of page 7 \[43\]) to be consistent with the description of the Housing Type as written on page 8. Amend the Framework Document to eliminate statements that stipulate that rear alleys “help to eliminate pavement” as although true in some site configurations it is not universally true in all circumstances (pg 16 \[51\]). Amend the Framework Document’s “Use Table” on page 10 to include Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing as permitted in NN-02 and NN-03 consistent with the draft Land Use Ordinance. - 2- Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.040 as follows: B5: Pedestrian Oriented Cluster residential Units are multiple dwellings grouped around o common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common green under communal ownership. Auto Parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or areas B7: Add a place holder for a Cottage Housing description consistent with the Unified o Land Use Ordinance. Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.050 to read as follows: B1(d) : Accessory residential units consistent with standards described in section 18- o 2.3.040 are not required to meet density or minimum area requirements. NEW B1(e). Accessory residential units shall be included for the purposes of meeting o minimum density calculation requirements for residential annexations as described in 18- 5.7.050F. B2(b): Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of o section 18-2.3.090 Cottage housing shall receive a density bonus consistent with 18- XX….(to be put forth in the ULUO) Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3-13.060 to read as follows: A3(a): Automobile Access to development is intended to be provided by alleys where possible consistent with the street connectivity approval standards. With Commission direction Staff will incorporate the clarifications noted above, and other th recommended editing changes, into the final documents to be presented to the City Council on May 6. Planning Commission recommendations relating to the neighborhood plan’s proposed land use designations, conservation and open space designations, street network, and draft land use ordinance will be incorporated into a Planning Commission report to be presented to the Planning Commission for ndth review on April 22, and subsequently forwarded to the City Council on May 6, 2014. Attachments Shared Street Standards and Cross Section Letters (submitted on 3/11/2014): Comments provided on Open City Hall (as of 4/02/2014) DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us DRAFT FOR STREET STANDARDS HANDBOOK Shared Street Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. Street Function: Provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle neighborhood circulation and access to individual residential and commercial properties designed to encourage socializing with neighbors, outdoor play for children, and creating comfortable spaces for walking and biking. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: Motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 15 mph Right-of-Way Width: 25' Pavement width : 18' minimum, maintaining full fire truck access and minimum turning paths at all changes in alignment and intersections. Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes : Minimum 12' clear width. Bike Lanes : Not applicable, bicyclists can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas Parking: Parking and loading areas may be provided within the right of way with careful consideration to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct pedestrian, bicycles, or emergency vehicle access. Parkrow: Not applicable Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas. Refuge areas are to be provided within the right of way to allow pedestrians to step out of the travel lane when necessary. Shared Street Cross Section Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AM As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? Introduction The City of Ashland is in the final stages of developing a plan for the future neighborhood at the north end of Normal Avenue and is seeking additional citizen input. The proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan reflects nearly two years of public participation and neighborhood involvement. Neighborhood planning is the opportunity to think ahead and determine a vision for the future of the neighborhood. Having an adopted plan in place will ultimately provide for the coordination of streets, pedestrian connections, utilities, storm water management and open space. The final plan is intended to provide a clear expectation and understanding for both developers and neighboring residents regarding future development. Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/NormalPlanDocument_20140225.pdf : 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? City officials will read the statements made on Open City Hall and consider them in their decision making process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on March 11th, 2014 in the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. If you have questions please contact Brandon Goldman at (541)552-2076 or brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us. Written comments may also be submitted via email or mailed to: City of Ashland Community Development Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 2 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AM, this forum had: Attendees:276 On Forum Statements:23 All Statements:34 Hours of Public Comment:1.7 All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 3 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and Victor Chang inside AshlandMarch 13, 2014, 11:55 PM Overall the planning looks solid and I appreciate the emphasis on these things: affordable housing, multi- density housing, green spaces, multi-use paths, minimizing drive-thru traffic, etc. Concerns: I'm curious as to the efficacy of shared streets. It may be cool for pedestrians but I'd had to live on one and have to drive around people every day. Also, I'm not sure what the plan for water and wastewater is- it cites wells and septic tanks, but surely that would not continue to be the plan. Would have liked to see planning and cost estimates for that. Lastly, though its very eco-chic to emphasize walkability but besides maybe walking to Walker ES, Ashland MS, Scienceworks, Hunter Park... people will be driving. I would like to see the traffic impact study of that many more residents and drivers on the traffic flows on Ashland St, Walker, E. Main, Tolman, etc. Thanks for considering these comments. Tanya Way inside AshlandMarch 12, 2014, 1:06 AM The increase in population for this area warrants an immediate plan and installation of a public park similar to the size of Garfield Park in Ashland. The affordable housing being proposed would undoubtedly increase the number of families with children who would benefit immensely from a large park at this end of town. If quality-of- life measures such as park size and placement cannot be maintained for residents along the eastern border of the development, the south end of Ashland will likely see a large drop in property value, recreational activity for families, and overall satisfaction of residents in this area. Beyond this, building homes on a 100-year flood plain will put these homes at high risk for irreparable or expensive damages over time, and the natural beauty of this area would be long gone. This is truly not going to add anything positive to Ashland. This plan needs to be tabled and re-visited after more research and public works planning is completed. Marni Koopman inside AshlandMarch 11, 2014, 5:06 PM I attended the Charrette and some of the planning meetings. During the Charrette, every group but one communicated that they did not want to see this new development have serious negative impacts to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. They asked that it be designed to avoid creating new stressors such as traffic and safety issues for neighborhoods along Normal Ave., Homes Ave., and Clay Street. These issues were ignored and the development plan in its current state creates a large volume of traffic, congestion, and safety issues along Normal Ave., Homes St., Clay St., and East Main St. These will be costly to rectify later, and the tax payers and home owners on those streets will be the ones to pay the price. Because the corner of Homes and Normal already has very high traffic from the proximity to ball fields, tennis courts, and schools, this area will quickly be overwhelmed by traffic if 450 units are built with 2 cars per unit and multiple trips to and from schools and downtown. I think that the planning for traffic has been inadequate and that the considerations of the surrounding neighborhoods, their quality of life, safety, and housing values have not been adequately addressed with this plan. I was also disappointed that the input from the Charrette participants was ignored. My other comment is completely unrelated to the first one. I have been working for the City of Fort Collins to help them plan for climate change, and they are currently working with private businesses and residences to All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 4 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and move their infrastructure OUT of the 100-year and 500-year flood plain due to increasing severity of storms with climate change. This is expensive (the Woodward technology company, for instance, is moving its entire campus out of the 500-year flood zone), yet the city is taking an active role in protecting its residents and making businesses secure in their investments. Severe storms have already increased across the West and are expected to continue to increase. It is irresponsible to put new development in 50-year and 100-year flood plains (not to mention 500-year) at this time. Either those developments will need to be moved in the future, at great cost to the owners and tax payers, or they will be damaged and peoples' livelihoods impacted by severe storms. While I support infill and the avoidance of sprawl, there is no need to put peoples' investments and their safety at risk. Climate change is here, it is affecting communities now, and we know better than to continue to do things that put people in danger from natural disasters. There is very high agreement among climate models that precipitation is expected to increase in the Pacific Northwest, with more severe storms in the winter and dryer, hotter summers. This increases the likelihood of flooding and water shortage. FEMA flood maps do not yet reflect the increasing risk over time, but they are working to update their information using forward-looking projections rather than historical averages. I am attaching a short overview of climate trends for the PNW that was produced by the US Global Change Research Program. A link is provided in that summary for the full report, which provides in depth information on current and future climate trends for this area. One sentence to note says "An increase in annual mean precipitation is simulated for the majority of the Northwest U.S., for all future time periods and both emissions scenarios. The CMIP3 models are mostly in agreement that precipitation will increase." There is no excuse for excluding climate change considerations from any current planning efforts, as the science is clear and accessible. Doing so puts people and infrastructure at risk and creates costs for families, businesses, and local government decades from now. We are in a time of transition where our zoning ordinances and development standards reflect historical conditions, but we fully understand that future conditions will be quite different. At one of the planning meetings, it was obvious that wetlands are not a valued feature and that they are destroyed without much concern. I happen to value wetlands for their wildlife and aesthetic values, but can understand that not everyone shares these values. However, I do want to point out that wetlands do provide very important services to people, including water filtration, flood protection, and nature for kids to enjoy. Because these wetlands are so close to the schools, they could be an important outdoor classroom for school children. In fact, kids that spend time outdoors have been shown to do better in school and have fewer behavioral problems, such as ADHD. The wetlands also hold water during floods, releasing it slowly and protecting neighboring infrastructure. By lining streams and channeling flows, we reduce the capacity of this "sponge" to function properly and protect us during severe storms. This reduces community resilience. Finally, I want to note that many communities in California, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, and many other states are taking proactive steps to protect their communities from climate change and increase their resilience in the face of natural disasters and other stressors such as water shortage, dam failure, heat waves, new diseases and disease vectors, etc. Ashland needs to become a leader in community All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 5 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and resilience rather than continue to plan and develop in the same ways as we have in the past. Ashland is a progressive community, yet this development plan does not reflect our progressive roots and societal values. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me for more information. Marni Koopman, Ashland Resident 1 Attachment https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1255sq3yxjkw.3k4/NCA- NW_Regional_Scenario_Summary_20130517_banner.pdf (1.18 MB) Alma Alvarez inside AshlandMarch 10, 2014, 9:06 PM Like many others that have posted comments, I have also participated in some of the planning sessions. While I understand that the city of Ashland would like to keep its growth within the boundary of the city, I was surprised to see that the plan, after all of the residents' discussions still listed the possibility of up to 560 dwellings. Most of the residents at the planning sessions attempted to "bargain down" the number to 450 units. While the plan is made with an eye towards encouraging walking and biking as alternative modes of transportation, I am concerned about the amount of traffic we will experience in the neighborhood if we were to have up to 560 units. The reality of modern living is that most households have at least two vehicles. The amount of traffic in such a densely populated area would mean a lot of cars. Like other Normal neighbors, I am concerned with maintaining the natural character of the area. I hope that our city takes good care of preserving the wetlands and the natural life connected with it. While I am not in support of the plan in terms of the proposed number of units, I do hope that our city makes a commitment to having some of the units marked as affordable housing units. Peter Halt outside AshlandMarch 10, 2014, 12:43 PM I own one of the parcels on normal Avenue directly abuttiing the wetlands currently slated for development. I currently have non-develop able wetlands in my back yard. There are several things concerned about this plan. 1. When I went to the planning commission meeting last week, it was apparent that the developers have no real interest in preserving the rural feel of this neighborhood. While they are careful to talk about preserving the wetlands, it is fairly clear that they are skeptical that wetlands exist or should exist on their property. Currently the plan states that the adjoining property with designated wetlands on it will be zoned NN-02, allowing for 10 units per acre. There is a provision in this plan that allows them to increase the density of housing by 1.5 if any portion of that lot is designated wetlands. That means that what is currently open space and in my backyard will have housing at the density of 15 units per acre, where there is none right now. Is there a housing shortage so grave that we need to put high density row houses into what is now unspoiled open land and wetlands? Is this the only alternative, or are we bowing to pressure from monied developers? I haven't seen this density of housing anywhere in Ashland. It makes no sense to drop it into the middle of farmland. Where are the studies All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 6 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and demonstrating a need for this type of housing? Even if all the property in question was zoned at NN-01, at 5 units per acre, this is an enormous number of small homes to add to the real estate market in Ashland. 2. I have heard concerns about the capacity of Ashland City water and sewer and that there have been problems with the Clay street development. Has the city thoroughly explored it's capacity to support this huge acreage filled with homes? 3. Currently the plan states that Normal Avenue will open to East Main. There was some talk at the planning commission meeting that this was a bad idea and will change to prevent Normal Ave from becoming a thoroughfare. I would agree with that and hope that this wisdom prevails. That straight road opened up to East main would be the most destructive feature of this plan if there is any true desire to preserve the "feel" of this neighborhood. 4. Do those of us that don't want to be annexed, that moved here for the rural feel, get to keep our TID irrigation, our horse and farm friendly zoning? Carol Block / Nicole Lee outside AshlandMarch 10, 2014, 6:56 AM I would like to draw the Planning Commission and citizens of Ashland's attention to a comment made by one of the other posters who noticed that several trenches have appeared in the southern section of designated Wetlands9 \[Roxanne Jones post of March 7, 2014\]. In walking that area the last two days, that person is absolutely correct in their observation! These trenches serve only one purpose: to draw rainwater away from the wetlands into a storm drain at the upper section of the Ashland Middle School turnaround. It's an obvious, blatant attempt to dry up the Wetlands of course. Some of these trenches are new (within the last year based on the lack of vegetation I suspect). You can even see the tractor marks! Why and who did this I wonder? There is no doubt that this work was done to minimize and reshape Wetlands9 in order to allow for higher density zoning allowance on the property. If the wetlands dried up, the property owners would have a larger footprint to build upon. If they have to mitigate wetlands, a smaller parcel would have to be identified (and not the 5.38 acres this wetland encompasses). I do believe that a permit is required to do any soil disruption on designated wetlands and includes a significant financial penalty. I wonder whether a permit was obtained? The Normal Neighborhood Plan is clearly the driver to having these trenches pull water away from the area and the citizens of Ashland should be up in arms over this. We should be nurturing these wetlands, not destroying them to make room for homes, retirement facilities, etc. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 7 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and This is the second time a pro-development speculative landowner has tried to minimize the designated wetlands on property they own. The first report was when someone cut down several Poplars and leveled out a section of their property. Does the City/County care that this kind of behind the screen destruction of naturescape is happening? I am sure the Department of State Land does. And in the earlier case, the developer was red tagged by DSL. For those who live and love this area of Ashland, this is an egregious act and I hope the Planning Commission is as concerned with this deliberate act and understands the motivation behind it. I hope these land owners are held accountable and are required to restore that which they are trying to destroy. These people should be ashamed of themselves. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak- ash3/t1/p261x260/1488648_664526177532_654660052_n.jpg 5 Attachments https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ykfd80fk.4ro/photo.JPG (247 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ykpnui74.3hn/photo2.JPG (337 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252yl381row.6g0/photo3.JPG (329 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252yldh6qds.4n7/photo4.JPG (347 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ylt46zls.6l1/photo8.JPG (324 KB) Karen Horn outside AshlandMarch 9, 2014, 9:53 PM I live across Clay Street from the Normal Neighborhood area. We were not brought into the planning process when it started because, we were told by a city representative, we do not live within the area itself. Since then, we have gone to many meetings about this plan, made statements at Planning Commission meetings, and strategized with our neighbors on how to best make our opinions heard. First, I commend the Planning Commission for even attempting to create a written plan for development rather than allowing it to happen in the traditional way of waiting for developers to come forward with their own plans and then saying yea or nay. That said, I do not feel the finished plan reflects the opinions that I heard voiced in the meetings. Instead, a group of consultants from out of town seems to have been let loose to do what they thought best, even though they were missing some key pieces of information about public transportation on E. Main, the extent of the wetlands on the property, and the latest urban planning ideas about how to create housing without wasted space for front lawns. Unfortunately there is nothing innovative or interesting about this plan. It does not reflect All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 8 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and the best of what Ashland has to offer. I am not even sure that the people who wrote this pretty plan walked the property even one time. We recently spent many thousands of dollars to mitigate water damage in the crawl space of our house. All three of the housing developments along Clay Street south of us are plagued by water damage and the constant remediation that is required because they were built over ancient creeks. The Normal Neighborhood is not development-friendly; anyone who builds there would be wise to make a sale and get out before the next wet year. Are those the kind of developers we want to encourage? Another seemingly insurmountable problem with this Plan is that E. Main will never have a bus route. Public transportation is necessary for a development of the size described in the Plan, and everyone involved repeats that mantra. However, the county won’t put a bus route on E. Main because right now there is not enough demand for it and because there is no room for a bus to stop without holding up all traffic behind it. Forces could be aligned to overcome these obstacles IF all parties agreed it was a vital goal to do so, but we are far from that today. The best use for the land in the Normal Neighborhood is agricultural. To grow plants, the overabundance of ground water suddenly becomes a positive thing. I have heard repeatedly through this planning process that using the land for community gardens is unrealistic because we need more development here in Ashland. There is no shortage I see of housing for the wealthy, but it is true that there is not enough low-income housing. The vision of protecting land outside the urban growth boundary depends on urban infill. But why not do infill on the vacant lots on Ashland Street, just a few blocks south? There is already a bus route there and lots of stores and restaurants to walk to. I think protecting farmland by keeping sprawl inside the urban growth boundary is a good idea. But for those who will live within the urban area, in condos on small lots without garden space, let’s set aside parts within the urban growth area as a place where they can grow food on small allotments, similar to the British system. Let’s face it: the challenge facing us in the future will not be to provide more and more newcomers with housing. It will be to make our town more self-sufficient for the people who are living here now, in growing our own food, reducing the miles that our food travels, and strengthening the community bonds that hold us together as we are drawn forward into an increasingly uncertain future. John Colwell outside AshlandMarch 7, 2014, 9:17 PM Our committee has had opportunity to review Ashland Planning Commission’s final draft of the Normal Street project. This review has been disappointing and we feel that our requests and input were, if not ignored, minimized and substituted with the planners own ideas of what they would like to see on our property. We were continually advised to give input and we did. We asked to have a zoning that would allow for a retirement facility to be included, we asked for the open area to be based on a real wetland survey rather than an out of date best guess of the extent of the wetland size, we asked for the required road to be moved and not be a straight through thoroughfare. Of these requests only the last one was adopted and even with this there was another road, surreptitiously called an “alley”, also placed on All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 9 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and our land. If this wasn’t adding insult to injury we don’t know what is. Our current opinion is that we will not support this plan and will do anything we can to fight its adoption. We will be at the Ashland City Council meeting when this is up for a vote and plan to discuss the leading way we were drawn into this process only to have nothing we said be adopted despite the fact that we are a major land owner within the boundaries of this project. At issue first, is planning staff indicating that the wetland designation and the open spaces were to be compensated by increased density zoning elsewhere in the plan. We were led to believe this meant on our land, giving us a 15 unit per acre NN-03 zoning which would allow for density close to retirement facility requirements. Secondly there was no indication of a second transportation corridor on any plans we saw until the final one. Now the planning staff think it is their prerogative to pull an alley out of our land also. We are disappointed in our planning process and the lack of consideration given to property owner’s concerns and also with the promise to participate in a process that seems predetermined from its outset. Sincerely: John Colwell and Ray Eddington for Gracepoint Church Roxanne Jones outside AshlandMarch 7, 2014, 7:06 PM When a change is instituted within a city it is not always a bad thing, provided the change is being done for the right reasons. Many people have asked, who is it that is wanting the Normal Plan? The vast majority of the property owners who live on Normal Avenue, and the surrounding neighborhoods, do not want any drastic changes to the beautiful natural environment that currently exists. It was stated at a city council meeting that Ashland currently has a surplus of housing and will not be needing any additional housing in the next twenty years. So, once again I ask, who is the plan for if it is not for betterment of the neighborhood or the city Additionally, what's the rush? Let's do things once, and do it right. It seems that the only people who are intent on pushing this plan forward are speculators looking to make a fast return on their investment. To do this, they will attempt to convince us that high-density, high-impact housing that replaces the natural beauty of one of the last undeveloped parcels of county land adjacent to Ashland is required. Some of those individuals don't even live in Ashland, and they will very likely take their profit and leave without doing anything to enhance or contribute to our local economy. Instead, Ashland residents will be left paying for "improvements" to East Main Street and other areas within the project site for years to come. I am in favor of developing a plan that accommodates the city's future needs, but I ask you to stand with me against a plan that irreparably damages the pristine acreage of lower Normal Avenue, robbing our community of a great resource. A successful plan will blend seamlessly with the existing environment. Ashland is an exceptional town filled with a diverse cross-section of All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 10 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and residents who have chosen to live, work, shop, donate their time and resources, and educate their children in this uniquely progressive and open-minded town. Those of us who have lived here for many years have a high benchmark for what constitutes an improvement. Standards exist that make it seem straightforward for a city to pave roads, install utilities, and designate dwellings here and there. However, Ashland is not Anytown, U.S.A. We hold ourselves to high standards, and as such we expect more of ourselves and our neighbors. To that end, our city council does works tirelessly to protect our interests for our community today as well as for future generations. There has been a tremendous amount of work and dialogue invested into the Normal Plan, but we are still waiting for a version which we can stand behind. Before that can happen, we will need to address the following questions: 1. Why is the City of Ashland not more concerned about destroying the rural nature of the land? 2. Why have we not chosen to celebrate and preserve the excellent soil in the Normal Plan area and set aside an extensive amount of acreage to be used as a community garden by the neighborhood that could also be conveniently accessed by the middle school to provide learning opportunities? 3. Why must many of the streets be so massively wide, some in excess of 50 feet, that they will end up looking like Anywhere U.S.A.? 4. What would the cost savings to the project be if the streets had a smaller footprint? 5. What will happen to the thousands of birds and other wildlife who currently call this area home? We are already seeing a lack of respect for nature in the Normal Plan area. It has been stated by others at city council meetings that one developer indiscriminately cut down trees and made an attempt to diminish a creek bed, another developer has blocked the flow of runoff water so that it now poses a threat to an existing neighborhood, and it also appears that the largest wetland in Ashland, Wetland 9, has been extensively altered this past year. Someone used a tractor to dig a series of lengthy trenches to direct the wetland water away from the ecosystem it supports and into a storm drain, and then they cleared a massive area of the wetland of all vegetation. These acts of environmental destruction are deliberate, on-going, and being carried out furtively on multiple properties with the end-goal of diminishing All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 11 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and the wetland area. Smaller wetland, more room to build. This is only the first taste of the environmental degradation, motivated by financial gain, that will completely destroy the ecosystem of Wetland 9 and the area surrounding lower Normal Avenue if the current plan is approved. The Normal Plan represents the largest area that could possibly be incorporated into the city, so let's continue working on this plan until a vision that maintains the current beauty and rural feel can be effectively meshed with the potential for additional housing some twenty years down the line when the housing is actually needed. Sue DeMarinis outside AshlandMarch 6, 2014, 3:20 PM I have reviewed and participated in every public meeting regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) since the first Charette in 2012. Every iteration and discussion of the Plan slightly changes the look of the potential zoning, roads and open spaces. I agree that there should be open spaces preserved/protected within this area. I commend the planners in their vision to do so. However, in the latest zoning map (Feb.25, 2014), there appeared an overlay of NN-02 zoning under the open space designations. Is the plan able to double zone lands within the NNP just in case a private land owner is able to mitigate their designated natural/wetland area off their land? What happens then to the overall “green space” as envisioned for the whole NNP? What compensation would be given, and by whom, to land owners if they must have their land zoned for public use as a green space/park or road? What if a land owner wanted to preserve their private farming rights where a public park or road is delineated? The transportation network is currently designed for connections between E. Main and Ashland Street, but the egresses onto E. Main should follow the density zoned for the eastern half of the NNP. To add another exit on the western half creates three real concerns regarding safety for the children at the AMS school bus turnaround, crossing through a State designated wetland, and exiting onto a blind curve of E. Main St. If that cut-through street doesn’t exist, then the new meandering road network within the NNP will truly be for the new residents. Otherwise, I see this western egress becoming a problem as a regularly used alternative vehicle route between the major boulevards in order to avoid the congestion and school speed zones on Walker Ave. A pervious surface (not paved), multi-use path toward AMS would serve the NNP community better, preserve our wetland resource, and encourage a green lifestyle and safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Also, the transportation map shows paved neighborhood streets, shared streets, and alleyways all going through planned conservation areas and current State Designated Wetlands. Shouldn’t impact studies and delineations be mandatory with this plan before locating roads through sensitive areas and established wildlife corridors, as well as for the effect these roads would have on storm water drainage, aquifer recharge and soil compaction? My overall impression of the NNP is that it is being driven by consideration for development and not much concern given to the impact on the existing neighborhood/environment. System development charges are said will be included in developer’s permits, but there will be hidden costs to all the citizens of Ashland for overall improvements to its sewer, water treatment, roads and RR crossings. And, no one has specifically stated what the mandatory “local improvements, or neighborhood LID” will cost the current residents already in the Normal Neighborhood who may not want these “improvements”. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 12 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and Thank you for listening, Sue DeMarinis Ashland, OR 97520 Jean Taylor inside AshlandMarch 5, 2014, 2:41 PM I oppose this development. As with all recent housing developments, Ashland has been attempting to infill as much as possible, which leads to the most houses possible crammed into a little area. I think this policy causes unattractive homes with very little space between neighbors. The proposed "green space" is not enough. And, as others have mentioned, has anyone asked for this development or is it just a way to spend grant money? jonathan seidler inside AshlandMarch 5, 2014, 9:17 AM I have attended all the study groups and have come away with a couple of disturbing facts that none here have alluded to. First is the total size of the proposed annexation. 90+ acres creates a guaranteed scenario of piecemeal development. This has been addressed as fact during comment time from developers at the study groups. It is a fact not disputed and over how many years the plan becomes realized is anyones guess. Real estate being very cyclical and risky in itself provides the scenario of abandoned efforts and a checkerboard effect of muddy half developed blocks amongst finished efforts. It has been put forth at the meetings that it is likely development would migrate in a southern direction from E. Main as primary services would begin there as it is the most cost effective starting point and the lure of the most profitable sales. The next point that has been made numerous times is the whereabouts of, if any, of wetlands. The developers have made numerous assertions that there are NO wetlands and that the "creeks" are presently irrigation flows during season and that their flows can be manipulated as so to make their presence as minimum and as invisible as possible. I would hope the council will address the fact of how large this annexation is and how little experience it has with one this size. I hope the council will only annex proposals ready to proceed with a guarantee that incidentals are in place to incorporate and promote to connecting properties for their future development. I hope the council does NOT back down on promoting wet land creation and preservation. If a developer then feels that he/she is losing their economic viability then they can raise their prices accordingly and see if the risk pans out in the market they've entered. People here need to understand that annexation does not mean that Ashland owns the land. Creating market gardens,sporting ovals,stomping grounds,etc, are all at the expense of the developers so it is likely the proposals will attract minimum expense when costs are considered. Angelina McClean inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 10:07 PM I appreciate the effort that has been made so far to try to accommodate so many different interests in the All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 13 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and community. Personally, I would like to see this area as undeveloped as possible. I don't know how realistic that is, but I am interested to know if considerations and studies have been or will be made concerning the environmental impacts that more development will have on this area. Specifically, I am concerned about the wetlands and if the proposed buffer zones are adequate. How did this area fare after the heavy rains we had recently, and how would that differ once it is developed? I am also curious about wildlife impact studies. I have heard there are owls, foxes, and other sensitive wildlife in the area. Is their habitat and mobility being taken into consideration? Do any species, like birds or waterfowl rely on this area for migration or overwintering? However this project plays out, I would like to add my support to the few who have already suggested a community garden. Natural, open spaces, parks, and community gardens are all things that will increase the value of our community far into the future. Lately I have seen articles about food forest plans that are cropping up in places like Seattle and Austin. I tried to paste a photo of the plans for the Austin food forest, but am only able to link to the webpage. It's worth considering. The article is at: www.austinchronicle.com The plans for the food forest are at: http://festivalbeachfoodforest.weebly.com/food-forest-plans.html Margaret Garrington inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 4:16 PM Provide multi use path connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians separate from streets. Link East Main bike path via a multi use path through the Normal neighborhood to the existing bike path to the south, and also create a western path link to the middle school. Shared streets are inconsistent with safety concerns when you have the opportunity to create separate transportation byways. Also designate place holders for public art and require developers to set aside a certain percent of development costs for multi use paths, parks, and public art. Jan Vidmar inside AshlandMarch 3, 2014, 10:31 AM Jan Vidmar inside Ashland I support the Normal Plan with two caveats. The proposed development of land adjacent to Cemetery Creek, just close to the railroad tracks, is currently designated NN-02. It makes more sense to have single family homes, similar to the homes currently built along Normal. In other words, like facing like and designated NN- 01. Ashland has very few "below the boulevard" neighborhoods with large yards. My second concern is the flow of Cemetery Creek. Although the creek is not always visible, walking through the wetland area is a soggy affair. A wetland does not always present itself with lakes, stream flow and ducks. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 14 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and Cemetery Creek should be considered a pathway for drainage. At times, after a hard rain, the creek flows and the water has a way to proceed from the hills to the valley floor. Any development that blocks that flow potentially puts home owners in flood peril. The current Normal Plan has homes and roads that would potentially impede this water flow. Michael Shore outside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 2:19 PM The process that arrived at this plan was fueled in part by a grant of money from the state. Part of the motive for this plan was described as finding a way to comply with rules laid out by the state pertaining to sprawl. Any plan like this would bump into the freedom of use that property owners would like to assume as rights vs the ability of either the state or the town to exert some controls on that use. This is a perfect set up for a turf battle. In an effort to find a middle ground some interested parties were invited to the "table", some were not. Certain developers made it clear that they would move forward to get the most value out of the land. I presume that value would be measured in dollars extracted. Some factions thought that with the "right amount" of preservation and beautification , controlled density would be abided....... so long as the density was not in proximity to them. What ever you believe about the power of special interests in determining policy, in this plan you can find evidence of owners and developers and government entities striving to get what they want. I think it is good for citizens to work hard to arrive at compromise. However some citizens represented ideas without the so called authority of ownership. Are mere residents and neighbors people who have legitimate claims to voice in the outcome? Are land owners the only legitimate voices in this decision? During the discussions some important points were raised and important questions went unanswered. Streets, safety,sewage, water, cost of fire protection, actual connectivity to public transit, cost of maintaining the proposed "natural" areas, these were all costs and conditions left hanging. Meanwhile some suggestions regarding the loss of beauty, habitat and ground water recharging area were received as charming but crank notions un related to the pragmatic business of real estate investment or satisfaction of State mandates. The plan arises from a need to control a blight called sprawl. The proponents say that at least there needs to be a plan because without a plan chaotic growth will be worse. I believe Ashland should annex the land and create a demonstration farm providing organic food for the local institutions, training and employment for the local interested citizens and yes some low income housing for those who choose to work and learn full time in the created facility. I believe over time we will look back on a plan that decreased Ashland's dependence on imported food, increased Ashland's influence on food quality with a civic pride in non GMO local seeds and maintained the beautiful view and free space of the Normal area acres with the pleasure that comes from seeing a secured and precious conservation plan in action. The Ashland Organic project would be one more reason for tourists, eco tourists, to visit and be enriched by our embrace of sustainable culture. Barry Vitcov inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 11:58 AM All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 15 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and I'm happy to see how the latest version of the Normal Neighborhood Plan has changed the area immediately north of Creek Drive to NN-02. This makes sense as it better blends the Meadowbrook Park Estates community to whatever might be developed in that area. I'm also pleased with the amount of open space in the plan. However, the NN-02 designated areas to the land west of Meadowbrook Park Estates and the adjacent open space does not seem appropriate. I believe that entire area, with the possible exception of the NN-02 designation that abuts North Main Street, ought to be designated NN-01. It doesn't make sense to me to have a swathe of higher density housing cut through what is now larger single-family parcels. There are increasingly fewer opportunities for families to purchase homes with significant yard space in Ashland, and I think it would be a good idea to reserve some potential for that type of property. Barbara Comnes inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 10:13 AM The plan does not directly address possible changes in railroad crossings. I live north of the Railroad District across the tracks and am very interested in seeing the 4th Street rail crossing be developed at least for pedestrians, if not for cars. I am concerned that the Normal Neighborhood Plan could remove the possibility of developing the 4th Street crossing. The distance between safe rail crossings with sidewalks and access to people with mobility issues in this part of town is one mile, which seems unacceptable for this most central location that blends housing with commercial activity, promoting a green lifestyle. Priscilla Hunter inside AshlandFebruary 28, 2014, 7:04 AM There are a couple of confusing items in your plan that I thought you'd like to know about. 1. In your list of housing types, your second category is a Double Dwelling Residence Unit, which I believe one would also call a duplex. You describe it as a pair of self-contained living facilities existing in either a side-by- side or a stacked configuration. I point out first that this housing type also exists in an "L" configuration. (This category appears to be a form of the Attached Residential Unit, your category 5, which seems to refer to the triplex or, as suggested by one of your photos, even the quatriplex structure, without reaching the housing capacity of the Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit, your category 6). 2. The third residential unit type listed in your plan is an Accessory Residential Unit (you describe it as a small living unit sharing a lot with a Single Dwelling Residential Unit). It is apparently a structure one would call a cottage, and, although you don't mention that word in your description of it, it does seem to be the same thing as what you call Cottage later in your report. It is clearly not the same thing as your second category in this list of housing forms, a Double Dwelling Residential Unit or your fifth category, an Attached Residential Unit. You have apparently listed the Accessory RU (cottage) as zoned for NN-01, NN-02, and NN-03. Later in your chart showing target housing density in each zoning district, the Cottage is the second category you have listed. However it does not appear to be included as a permitted structure in zones 02 and 03, which seems to contradict what you have said about the Accessory RU in the earlier part of your plan. I hope you find this helpful information. Brian Kolodzinski inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 9:44 PM All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 16 of 17 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and I support the project overall but was surprised when I got to the end and read there was no city water or sewer service. Is this true for all developments in that part of town? I also hope there would not be too many roadways over streambeds. The natural layout of the area should be incorporated into the design of the neighborhoods as much as permissible. In addition to the open spaces, it would be nice to see some community gardens for residents that are residing in the higher density dwellings. Steve Read inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 7:26 PM First a question: Who or what is driving this project, ie. what needs does it fulfill. Did the neighborhood request changes? Second: The story about the trains blocking emergency vehicles must be a really old one as there have been almost no trains for 10 years or so. Inserting that scare tactic into the discussion destroys the credibility of the entire project. If you will use scare tactics to sell your project then I will never support it. Your credibility has been damaged. Jim Curty outside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 5:15 PM I stand in opposition to the plan. Roadways have been planned without listening to the owners. The size of wetland W9 is grossly overstated. As a representative of land that will be procured for roads... we feel that use of our land is being decided without our future plans being taken into consideration. (Two roads across the land!) We do not want to stand in the way of progress, but the plan means our land will no longer be able to be developed in any way that would enhance our mission. Donald Stone inside AshlandFebruary 27, 2014, 4:00 PM I have no objection to the plan. However, my concern would be whether or not the residents of the Normal Neighborhood have been active in wanting and requesting these changes. If not, and they are simply "victims" of another City Administration pie in the sky "improvement plan" similar to the Plaza renovation, then I would favor the City just butting out and considering that it likely ain't broke so don't try to fix it. Don Stone 395 Kearney St All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 2, 2014, 9:45 AMhttp://peakdemocracy.com/1738Page 17 of 17 DISCUSSION ITEM _________________________________ Short Term Rentals in R-1 Zone Ashland Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) Amendments necessary to permit limited travelers accommodation uses within Single Family properties Table 18-2.2.030 Allowed Uses by Zone Add Travelers Accommodations in designated Residential Zones to the use table to be a CU+S (Conditional Use Permit with Special Use Standards) or S (Special Permitted Use) Applicability: Allow in all Residential Zones; or can be limited to y? R-1 and R-1-3.5 onl Chapter 18-2.3 – Special Use Standards Add a new section 18-2.3.220 Traveler’s Accommodations in R-1, R-1-3.5, RR and WR Zones Where traveler’s accommodations are allowed, they require a Conditional Permit under chapter 18-5.4, and shall meet all of the following requirements: A. The property on which the traveler’s accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a boulevard, avenue, or neighborhood collector as identified on the Street Dedication Map in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances to the property from a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector shall be measured via a public street or public alley to a lot line. Note: Council requested the Commission discuss the existing 200-foot standard and forward any recommended changes. There are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones. If we assume that the number of travelerÔs accommodations that would be offered, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units investigated by City code compliance since May of 2012, then that would represent approximately 80 properties, or 1.5% of the parcels in R-1. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street. If the same percentage offers travelerÔs accommodations, that would be 40 units. The number, however, could be smaller if a CUP is required. B. During operation of a traveler’s accommodation, the property on which the traveler’s accommodation is sited must be the primary residence of the family or individual operating the traveler’s accommodation. Note, “Primary Residence” is defined in the draft ULUO as: The property that the taxpayer uses a majority of the time during the year ordinarily will be considered the taxpayer’s principal residence. In addition to the taxpayer’s use of the property, relevant factors in determining a taxpayer’s principle residence may include, but are not limited to: 1. The taxpayer’s place of employment; 2. The principal place of abode of the taxpayer’s family members; 3. The address listed on the taxpayer’s federal and state tax returns, driver’s license, automobile registration, and voter registration card; 4. The taxpayer’s mailing address for bills and correspondence; 5. The location of the taxpayer’s banks; and 6. The location of religious organizations and recreational clubs with which the C. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the property. All parking spaces shall be in conformance with chapter 18-4.4 Parking and Loading. E. Signage is limited to ………… in conformance with chapter 18-4-7 *Signs prohibited Ï Similar to Home Occupations, signs would not be permitted, however, except as allowed under the ÑExemptÒ section of ALUO 18.96, which would limit the operation to two, small incidental signs provided signs do not exceed two square feet in area per sign. *Sign Allowance Ï In line with standards for travelerÔs accommodations approved through the CUP process in multi-family zones, the Commission could consider allowing one ground or wall sign. Existing code for TAs in 18-4.7.60B: 3. Retail and Traveler’s Accommodation Uses. Retail commercial uses allowed as a conditional use in the Railroad District and traveler's accommodations in residential zones shall be allowed one wall sign or one ground sign that meets the following standards: a. The total size of the sign is limited to six square feet. b. The maximum height of any ground sign is to be three feet above grade. c. The sign must be constructed of wood and cannot be internally illuminated. F. The total number of travelers accommodation units on a property shall be limited to one. The single traveler accommodation unit can consist of one of the following accommodation types: 1. a one bedroom or two bedroom suite located within the residence that uses the main entrance of the residence to access the accommodation; 2. a one bedroom or two bedroom suite within the foot print of an existing residence but accessed through an exterior entrance separate from main entrance; or 3. a separate structure located on the property and detached from the primary residence of the property. G. The travelers accommodation can consist of one or two-bedrooms, not exceeding a combined area of \[a specified size\]. For example, the accommodation could be restricted to 500 square feet or 25% of the gross habitable floor area, whichever is less. H. Traveler’s accommodations must met all applicable building, fire and related safety codes at all times and must be inspected by the fire department before occupancy following approval of a Conditional Use Permit and periodically thereafter pursuant to AMC 15.28. I. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon. J. The business-owner must maintain a city business license and pay all transient occupancy tax in accordance with AMC 4.24 and AMC 6.04 as required. K. Advertising for any traveler’s accommodation must include the City of Ashland planning action number assigned to the land use approval. L. Offering the availability of residential property for uses as a traveler’s accommodation without a valid Conditional use Permit approval, current business license and Transient Occupancy Tax registration is prohibited and shall be subject to enforcement procedures. M. All previous approvals, conditions and requirements remain in effect upon change of business-ownership. Memo TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director DATE: March 11, 2014 RE: Hosted short-term in single family zoning districts SUMMARY On November 4, 2013, the City Council discussed the issue of potentially permitting short term rentals on owner-occupied properties in single-family zoning districts, and requested that the Commission forward recommendations for Council consideration. Staff is soliciting Planning Commission feedback on potential code amendments that would allow a hosted or owner- occupied property within a single- accommodation unit. As part of considering this type of use, which currently is not permitted in single family zoning districts, a number of code amendments should be evaluated that would regulate size of accommodation, location, type (i.e. attached or detached), management, parking and the approval process. Additional standards as well could be generated by the Commission and through the public hearing process. Lastly, in addition to neighborhood impacts, the potential effects on the supply of long term housing rentals should be considered as different standards are evaluated. BACKGROUND: The City has had an ongoing problem with illegal lodging facilities in all of its residential zones. These facilities, which operate without conditional use permits or business licenses and without paying transient occupancy tax, will often advertise on web sites such as VRBO.com or AirBnB.com, making them relatively easy to find for code enforcement purposes. Since May of 2012, when the City began more vigorous code enforcement efforts with regard to illegal lodging facilities, about 60% to 70% of the code enforcement actions have been targeted at facilities in R-1 zones. In January 2014, the Planning Commission initiated a new discussion of potentially permitting short term accommodations in single family zoning districts. This meeting presents an opportunity to continue the discussion, specifically focusing on aspects of a potential code amendment that would allow for limited operations comprised of a single accommodation on a ty. Additionally, the Commission has been asked to evaluate the existing code within 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector. In a prior Council communication, staff noted that there are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones. on a short term basis, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units investigated by City code compliance since May of 2012, then that would be approximately 80 units or approximately 1.5% of the parcels in R-1. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200 feet of an arterial or major street. If the same percentage would be approximately 40 units. The number, however, could be smaller if a CUP is required. POTENTIAL PROPOSAL: Given recent code zoning districts, R-2 and R-3, staff and the Commission should assume that any allowance for short term rentals in the single family zoning district, R-1, would be limited to owner or host- or host. Some rentals in single family (R-1) neighborhoods. According to their literature, the Ashland Host Occupied Short Term (HOST) Rental Advocacy is a community group comprised of Ashland residents who feel that their proposal fills a niche for a portion of travelers interested in visiting Ashland. While staff is not at the point of advocating for the proposal, it does represent a accommodation per property. Ashland HOSTS suggest that their proposal is similar to the operation of a home occupation use, with the exception that hours of operation for a home occupation limits customers between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Home occupations are a permitted use in all single family zones. Due to a dramatic increase in the number of houses, apartments and bedrooms being rented informally on a short-term basis, the City of Portland as well is considering a similar proposal. Their amendments would allow renting one to two bedrooms in the house, apartment or condominium where the operator lives as their primary residence. NEXT STEP: Staff would like the Planning Commission to focus a good part of their discussion on elements that could be included in a package of code amendments. These issues would be considered essential should the Council entertain adoption of code amendments that would result in greater flexibility for the operation of short term accommodations in single family neighborhoods. A list of key items for consideration has been prepared by staff and is included in the packet. To focus Commissioner discussion and direct public testimony, these are divided into three subsections: Use-Related Regulations Site Design Regulations; and Procedure for Approval Just to remind the Commission, the Council forwarded this issue to the Planning Commission to solicit a recommendation. The Council was clear to add that the act of forwarding the issue should not be construed to imply that the Council currently endorses, at this time, encouraging short term rentals in single family districts. Attachments: Discussion Draft - Possible R-1 Code Changes Discussion Draft March 11, 2014 Single unit, one or two-bedroom t in residential zones, with consideration of the following: A. Potential Use-Related Regulations: 1. Management *The family or individual operating the Hosted Site - (TA) must reside on the property, which is also residence. 2. Location * - Allow in all Residential Zones; or can be limited to R-1 and Residential Zones R-1-3.5 only The hosted accommodation could be required *Distance from a major street to be within 200 feet of a major city street, boulevard, avenue, or neighborhood collector, to be consistent with standards currently applied to Councilrequested the Commission discuss the existing 200-foot Note: standard and forward any recommended changes. There are currently 5,305 parcels in R- accommodations that would be offered, if legal, would be equal to the number of illegal units investigated by City code compliance since May of 2012, then that would represent approximately 80 properties, or 1.5% of the parcels in R-1. There are currently 2,710 parcels in R-1 zones located within 200 feet of an arteria accommodations, that would be 40 units. The number, however, could be smaller if a CUP is required. 3. Number, Size and Type of Accommodations per Property - One traveler accommodation unit per property. *Number of Accommodations 1 Accommodation can consist of one or two-bedrooms, not *Maximum Size exceeding a specified size in order to limit number of persons. For example, the accommodation could be restricted to 500 square feet or 25% of the gross habitable floor area, whichever is less. The single traveler accommodation can consist of one *Accommodation Type of the following accommodation types: a one bedroom or two bedroom suite located within the residence that uses the main entrance of the residence to access the accommodation; a one bedroom or two bedroom suite within the foot print of an existing residence but accessed through an exterior entrance separate from main entrance; or a separate structure located on the property and detached from the primary residence of the property. B. Potential Site Design Regulations 1. Parking *Off-street Parking No additional off-street parking requirement. However, the property shall have two off-street parking spaces available. 2. Signs *Signs prohibited Similar to Home Occupations, signs would not be permitted, however, , which would limit the operation to two, small incidental signs provided signs do not exceed two square feet in area per sign. *Sign Allowance approved through the CUP process in multi-family zones, the Commission could consider allowing one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size is allowed. 2 C. Procedure for Approval 1. Land Use Application Type *Conditional Use Permit (Type I Procedure) This entails filing a land use application including a site plan and addressing the applicable criteria for approval. Once found to be complete, the Community Development Department to property owners within 200-feet informing them of the request and soliciting comment. A final decision would be made, again with notice to surrounding property owners. This decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. 2. Application Fee * Administrative Approval A reduced fee could be considered based upon the scale of the proposed use (i.e. single accommodation) being smaller than 3 PUBLIC INPUT _________________________________ DISCUSSION ITEM _________________________________ Medical Marijuana Dispensaries ev A ni atnu oM .N Memo TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director+ DATE: March 25, 2014 RE: Zoning Issues Related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries At its March 18, 2014 meeting, the Council directed staff to draft ordinance amendments for the Planning Commission’s consideration that would address the local review process for evaluating the location of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Ashland. The Council requested that the Commission consider these amendments as soon as possible. Any locally adopted amendments would be in addition to the current requirements under State Law that already prohibit establishing dispensaries within 1000 feet of a secondary or primary school, as well as not permitting a dispensary within 1000 feet of another dispensary. At the January 21 and March 18 Council meetings, there was discussion about the possibility of restricting dispensaries in the downtown area, as well as requiring a more discretionary review process in the case of a proposal to establish a dispensary immediately adjacent to or across the street from a residential zoning district. It is anticipated that a public hearing on the proposed code amendments will be held at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on May 13, 2014. In preparation toward working on specific code language, staff has prepared some examples of code provisions intended to address the issues identified at the aforementioned council meetings. This is intended to supplement the information provided to the Commission by staff at the March 12, 2014 meeting. The following language could be added under allowed Conditional Uses in C-1; E-1 and M-1 zoning districts, establishing dispensaries as a conditional use if located within 100 feet of a residential district. Conditional Uses J. Medical marijuana dispensaries, if such uses are located on a parcel of land less than or equal to 100' from the nearest residential zoning district. Additionally, the following restriction could apply within the downtown area. This was suggested as a possibility by the City Administrator due to the fact that the downtown attracted a variety of visitors from around the country, and these travelers may not be informed or as understanding of Oregon’s position with medical marijuana dispensaries. Within the Downtown Design Standards Zone Overlay (See Map), medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited. Attachments: City of Ashland Zoning Map Downtown Design Standards Zone Map V A NOS REFFE J D R OE ET STL MI TS NOT GNIHS AW YW GNI RPS YW ACMY TS ELG NE T S YAL C TS Y ALC VA A DNIL VA AZA LP TS K RAP VA L AMR ON VA LAMR ON RD WEIVL NLIH L YAR NL YAR VA KRALC YW TIL YW TIL YW N EDR AG VA REK LAW VA R EKLAW Y W SU PMA C NL S ECN ARF TS AN AIDN I TS NA MTH GIW TS ECY DROF TS AIN ROFIL AC T S Y REVA RD K RAP EGAL LIV TS NLO CNIL TS ACOR TS ACOR VA M LAP T S RE DAK LE TS R EDAKL E VA N IATN UOM N V A NI ATN UOM S VA NI ATN UOM S RD DO OWN ELG VA ESR OM T S HCA EB TS NNYL T S YTR EBIL T S YT REBI L TS NNA TS NO TR OM TS S PLEH P T S N OTRO M TS L ORA C TS NAM REH S TS YENRA EK TS OHADI T S K AO TS TS ROLYA ROLYAT T Y W GN OL TS MAH SERG TS EDAE MTS YE NTRUOC T S REFIN TNEJ S TSE RCLLI H TS ECARRET TS LERU AL N T S RE GAR D TS ERW OD NELG TT S TS HGI NAH SNA V TS KCO R CINECS RD RD CINEC S VA A TLA TS TUNT SEHC TS TUNLAW T S MIRP RD KEERC STHGIRW OHT YW NOTNR PUBLIC INPUT _________________________________